도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The punishment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable, due to the gist of the grounds for appeal;
(The defendant explicitly withdraws the claim of mental or physical disability during the first trial of the trial). 2. Determination of the case, the fact that the defendant recognized the facts of the crime and reflects his mistake, and the fact that there is a dependent, etc., are recognized as the circumstances favorable to the defendant.
However, the defendant has a history of being punished for the same drinking driving, and there is a history of having been punished several times due to the violation of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents or the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (two times a suspended sentence, and three times a sentence). In particular, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since the defendant's punishment was imposed for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as the first criminal record at the time of the original judgment, but there is a high possibility of criticism that he/she committed the crime in this case during the period of the repeated crime, he/she made a false statement at an investigative agency that he/she was driving, and the risk of drinking driving is realized due to the occurrence of the traffic accident caused by the crime in this case, and other various circumstances that are conditions of the sentencing in this case, including the defendant's age, occupation, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, the motive and circumstance of the crime in this case, family relationship, and criminal record.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, among the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1. Discretionary mitigation is clear that it is a clerical error, and thus, it is corrected that ex officio deletion is made pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
.